Introduction
In a significant constitutional development in India’s anti-corruption jurisprudence, Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court declared Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) unconstitutional, holding that the provision protects dishonest public servants rather than honest ones.
Delivering a separate opinion in a split verdict, Justice Nagarathna ruled that the requirement of prior approval before even initiating an inquiry or investigation under Section 17A is contrary to the object and purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
This judgment revives long-standing constitutional concerns surrounding executive interference in corruption investigations and reinforces the principle that anti-corruption laws must facilitate, not frustrate, accountability.
What is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Section 17A, inserted by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, mandates that no police officer shall conduct any inquiry or investigation into offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of official functions without prior approval from:
- The Central or State Government, or
- The authority competent to remove the public servant from office.
The provision was justified as a safeguard to protect honest officers from frivolous and vexatious investigations arising out of bona fide policy decisions.
Justice Nagarathna’s Core Holding: Prior Approval Itself Is Unconstitutional
Justice Nagarathna clarified that the central issue was not who should grant approval, but whether such prior approval should exist at all.
She held that Section 17A forestalls investigation at the threshold, thereby allowing corrupt public servants to:
- Delay inquiries
- Influence approval-granting authorities
- Scuttle the criminal justice process
“The latent object of Section 17A is that it functions as a shield that protects dishonest public servants rather than honest ones.”
According to her, honest officers acting with integrity do not require statutory shields, whereas corrupt officials exploit such provisions to evade scrutiny.
Attempt to Resurrect a Struck-Down Regime
A crucial part of Justice Nagarathna’s reasoning lies in the legislative history of prior approval regimes.
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
The Supreme Court struck down executive instructions requiring government approval before CBI investigations against senior officials, holding that such control undermined investigative independence.
Section 6A of the DSPE Act (1946)
Section 6A required prior approval to investigate Central Government officers of Joint Secretary rank and above.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI (2014), a five-judge Constitution Bench struck down Section 6A as violative of Article 14, holding that corruption cannot be classified based on rank.
Justice Nagarathna concluded:
“Section 17A is nothing but another attempt to resurrect on the statute book what was struck down by this Court earlier.”
Violation of Article 14: Invalid Classification Among Public Servants
Although Section 17A appears to apply to all public servants, Justice Nagarathna exposed its substantive effect, noting that:
- The expressions “recommendation made” and “decision taken” necessarily relate to higher-level decision-making officers
- Lower-level officers merely prepare notes and do not take binding decisions
Thus, Section 17A effectively protects a specific class of senior public servants, creating an impermissible classification.
She held that this classification:
- Lacks a rational nexus with the objective of the PCA
- Fails the twin test of Article 14
- Undermines the rule of law by insulating powerful officials
“There is, in substance, a classification within the class of public servants which does not satisfy Article 14.”
Arbitrariness and Conflict of Interest Under Section 17A
Justice Nagarathna identified multiple layers of manifest arbitrariness, including:
Policy Bias
Approval decisions are taken within the same government department, making them susceptible to institutional loyalty and political considerations.
Collective Decision-Making
Government decisions are often taken collectively, making it difficult to isolate one officer for approval, thereby enabling denial or delay.
Conflict of Interest
The authority granting approval may itself have participated in the decision under scrutiny, violating principles of natural justice.
She held that the approval process is an institutional decision, inherently arbitrary and opaque.
Rejection of Substitution with Lokpal or Lokayukta
Justice Nagarathna strongly disagreed with Justice KV Viswanathan’s view that the word “Government” in Section 17A could be read as Lokpal or Lokayukta.
She held that such an interpretation amounts to judicial legislation, which is impermissible.
“By merely shifting the authority from Government to Lokpal or Lokayukta, unconstitutionality does not vanish.”
She further observed that the legislature intentionally excluded independent bodies, thereby ensuring executive control over investigations.
Impact on Anti-Corruption Framework and Constitutional Morality
Justice Nagarathna concluded that Section 17A:
- Undermines prompt and effective investigation
- Violates Articles 14 and 21
- Weakens India’s domestic and international anti-corruption commitments
- Erodes public confidence in governance
By blocking investigations at inception, the provision strikes at the heart of constitutional accountability.
Conclusion
Justice BV Nagarathna’s opinion marks a strong reaffirmation of constitutional values, equality before law, and investigative independence. By striking down Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, she has reiterated that corruption cannot be fought by shielding those in power.
This judgment reinforces the principle that anti-corruption laws must empower investigators, not paralyse them, and that no public servant, irrespective of rank, can claim immunity from inquiry.
As India continues to grapple with systemic corruption, this decision stands as a reminder that constitutional morality must prevail over executive convenience.
Also Read
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
